Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-11-23
THE BRIDGE CONTROVERSY.
The United States begins Action % En-.
Join the Railroad Company.
THE BILL FILED IN couRr THIS MoRNrNa-rHE CON-
PANY SAID 10 RAVE NO RIGHTS AT TIE LOCALITY
IN DISPUTE.


THE BILL FILED IN COURT THIS NoRNrNe-rHk CON-
PANY SAID 10 RAVE NO RIGHTS AT TIE LOCALITY
IN DISPUTE.
The Eastern Branch Bridge controversy was to-
day transferred to the courts the judicial authority
being invoked TO prevent the Baltimore and Poto-
mac Railroad Company from interfering further
with the construction Of q pier and abutment for
the bridge at the foot Of Pennsylvania avenue.
The United States to-day, by Attorney General
Garland and District Attorney worthington, nled
bill against the railroad company for an injunc-
ton. The bill sets forth the Incorporation OF the
defendant company with the right to enter the
city by one of two routes one at the intersection
OF boundary street and North Carolina avenue, to
street south, 20 Virginia avenue, and by south c
street TO west OF 9th street. and the other entering
oe 0e'ween and streets south on the north shore
south street, Virginia avenue TO street. to 4th,
thence curving to the right to the north bank OF
6ns @ canal 70 Virginia avenue. to g street west OF
The complainant further states that on the 23d
OF Feoruary last q contract was made with the
Gr0ton Bridge and Manufacturing Co. for the con-
struction OF q bridge across the Eastern Branch
from the terminus OF Pennsylvania avenue south
east. IL Charges that, while the defendant had
the right TO enter the city by either OF the two
routes named it has not entered by either OF them,
Dut mas come In by tracks considerably 10 the east
WARD OF south street. and crosses with its tracks
Ine circle at The foot OF Pennsylvania avenue. The
Dill states that, although the DEFENDANTS tracks
are so located without authority yet in order that
its operations might be unhindered by the con-
struct1on OF the western approach TO the bridge,
provision was made for the abuJment and pier
between which space OF So feet In length was
left Tor roadway at great and sufficient eieva-
vation, IL feet above the tracks, both pier and
abutment TO be located on the circle and upon the
pubic property OF the United states
Inc Dill further states that the said avenue and
circle are the property OF the United States, and
that the employees OF the Groton Bridge and Manu-
featuring Co. on November ls 1887, under their
Sotn nfRn anil mo fnCr
an excavation for the foundation OF the pier and
abutment. II is charged that the defendant,
Excavation I he s ea%1eS ana Nv th tne
asSemblage OF men by force and Intimidation COM
pelled stoppage OF the work, which has conse-
quently been brought to stand. The complain
ant further states that the contracting Company
will look to the defendant for indemnify, and It
may be rendered liable 1or damages. The COM
tendant from any interference with the work on
the pier and abutment.
TIE BRIDGE CONPANY's COMPLAINT
Appended to the bill for Injunction is the am
davit Of Frank Conger vicepresident Of the Bridge
Company, setting forth that the plans provide for
same OF 81 feet IN length for a roadway over the
tracks OF the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad
Company, and at an elevation Of Is feet above
the tracks, and that the construction OF
the abutment viii In no manner interfere
with the defendants trains; that they began the
WORK OF excavation at O'Clock on the lSlh instant
railroad, demanded a cessation OF the work; that
the WORK was continued till nOon when, IN the ao-
s,nce OF the bridge company's !workmen at
dinner, the w0rkinen OF the railroad COM
pany renled the excavation; tnaJ after
dinner the workmen OF the bridge company essayed
to proceed with the work, and wornmen OF the
railroad company entered, and rs Iast as dirt was
throw out threw 1t bach, until finally the excava-
tion was completely nlled. he has been Informed
tnaC IL Is useless TO attempt 10 proceed
for the railroad would bring thousand
men toprevent hts operations II necessary. The
work Is therefore OF necessity suspended, though III
the Groton Co. Is required by its contract 10 CON-
pete the br1dse before August 1, 1885, and has ex-
ecuted bond ID the penalty OF 81, 600.
other affidavitS also are nled showing that the
road Is located on the public ground.
WHAT Is SAID ON EACH SIDE.
Mr.. Totten, the attorney of the railroad company.
said this morning that the question was one tor
the engineers TO deuermine The railroad com.
pany claim that they are right under the law,
and that the attempt Is made TO Gig the fOundR.
white che company has no track on the exact spot
In controversy they contemplate laying track
there.
The representative Of the bridge company said
10 STAR reporter, this morning, that there was
out width OF l9 feet OF ground involved, and an
attempt had been made to come 10 an understand
Ing. he deprecated an appeal TO the courts, as he
said 1t would cost more than II would to pay for
the grounQ needed.
AT the depot some OF the employees say that the
company Is not opposed 10 the erection OF the
bridge; but, as matter OF principle, they could
not give up any VI tnelr rights 70 The ground